Why We "Ought" to Avoid Evil?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why We "Ought" to Avoid Evil to enable its related good to manifest?

And I have refuted your argument that what we call facts are illusions. So you cannot use that argument at all, let alone to defend your strange claim that there are moral facts.

Where?
If you think so, it is likely to be half-cooked.
You ignored all the points I raised in my above posts.
Being so particular with the matter, I would not have left it half-hanged.
If I had conceded I would have admitted it.

This is laughable. You either don't understand or ignore any refutation of your argument. But hey, try these two again.

1 Why ought we to oppose evil and promote goodness, (as you define them)?
Suggestion: write down your reason(s) as simply and clearly as you can.
For example: 'We ought not to do evil (act to the net detriment to the individual and society) because...' Now, go on.

2 You agree that non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions. But all your arguments for moral objectivity have non-moral premises. If you disagree, show us that I'm wrong. Go on.

Your above is a strawman.

I have never agreed that moral principles are to be commanded as 'ought' i.e. modal verbs which arise from subject[s] opinions, beliefs and judgments of rightness or wrongness.
This is where I agree with Hume's there cannot be any "ought" from "is".

If you can recall [..I have posted in many posts and threads], I have argued there are 'ought-not-ness' or 'ought-ness' as nouns [biological facts] represented by its physical neural correlates that enable moral facts within a human-based moral FSK.
Although not mentioned by Hume, the moral 'ought-not-ness' or 'ought-ness' are implied within Hume's morality.

Also I have never focused on promoting goodness per se but rather once 'evilness' [as defined] is managed, reduced or eliminated, its related goods will manifest. All these are subject to its degrees within degrees of objectivity.

I will collate all my earlier posts and present them here; that will take some time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes 1:
My approach to Morality is similar to Hume's [& Kant's] but not exactly because they have limitations on knowledge of human nature during their time.

Here is an intro to Hume's Morality;
"Hume seeks an empirical theory of morality grounded on observation of human nature."
"He rejects the rationalist conception of morality whereby humans make moral evaluations, and understand right and wrong, through reason alone."

Hume’s ethical theory continues to be relevant for contemporary philosophers and psychologists interested in topics such as metaethics, the role of sympathy and empathy within moral evaluation and moral psychology, as well as virtue ethics.

Hume’s moral thought carves out numerous distinctive philosophical positions.
He rejects the rationalist conception of morality whereby humans make moral evaluations, and understand right and wrong, through reason alone.

In place of the rationalist view, Hume contends that moral evaluations depend significantly on sentiment or feeling.
Specifically, it is because we have the requisite emotional capacities, in addition to our faculty of reason, that we can determine that some action is ethically wrong, or a person has a virtuous moral character.
As such, Hume sees moral evaluations, like our evaluations of aesthetic beauty, as arising from the human faculty of taste.
Furthermore, this process of moral evaluation relies significantly upon the human capacity for sympathy, or our ability to partake of the feelings, beliefs, and emotions of other people.
Thus, for Hume there is a strong connection between morality and human sociability.

Hume’s philosophy is also known for a novel distinction between natural and artificial virtue.
Regarding the latter [artificial], we find a sophisticated account of justice in which the rules that govern property, promising, and allegiance to government arise through complex processes of social interaction.
Hume’s account of the natural virtues, such as kindness, benevolence, pride, and courage, is explained with rhetorically gripping and vivid illustrations.
The picture of human excellence that Hume paints for the reader equally recognizes the human tendency to praise the qualities of the good friend and those of the inspiring leader.
Finally, the overall orientation of Hume’s moral philosophy is naturalistic.
Instead of basing morality on religious and divine sources of authority, Hume seeks an empirical theory of morality grounded on observation of human nature.

Hume’s moral philosophy is found primarily in
Book 3 [Part I Section 1&2] of The Treatise of Human Nature and his
Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals,
although further context and explanation of certain concepts discussed in those works can also be found in his Essays Moral, Political, and Literary.

https://iep.utm.edu/humemora/

The above is just an intro, there are more to cover.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes 2: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am reserving space for my points for easy reference [to avoid searching for needles in a pile of shit] before this thread get messed up.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[FlashDangerpants]

I have argued there are 'ought-not-ness' or 'ought-ness' as nouns [biological facts]

Those are mere unexamined expectations. You announce them as "oughts" simply because you cannot distinguish between the norm and the normative. "People ought to do X because I am used to them doing X and I expect them to do X" is a shit argument and you ought to have moved on from it long ago if you ever want to be capable within this field.

All you could even possibly manage with that line of argument is to kick the can down the road anyway. Instead of why we ought to avoid evil, now you have a gap where there should be an explanation of why we should obey these biological imperatives...

...and at this new, pure biological level, none of those things is cognisable. So you would only be teeing up a much worse problem for yourself if you had the ability to move on. You would be unable to express any moral proposition.

It would take at least a decade of study at your current rate of progress to reach the point where that debate can be usefully examined though.

[phyllo]

Why ought we to oppose evil and promote goodness, (as you define them)?

This thread depends on a special definition of the word 'evil'?

Oh oh.

Notes : AIF

Avoid in Future

[FlashDangerpants]

Why ought we to oppose evil and promote goodness, (as you define them)?

This thread depends on a special definition of the word 'evil'?

VA has has his own special definition of "morality-proper" that doesn't include right and wrong or anything to do with either of those.
He even has his own "Budhism-proper" (fuck knows why, IDC)
He can totally have his own version of evilness (it's something absurdly teleological to do with the future of humanity)

[Veritas Aequitas]

Not surprise an Ultracrepidarian gnat is already infesting this OP and sending pheromones to his gang.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe in the spirit of philosophy and the seeking of wisdom, we should suspend judgment and not to be too sure of one's hasty and subjective opinions.
Rather, in the presence of alternative views to one's dogmatic ideologies, one should explore and research deeper and wider.